Fisheries Committee on March 10th, 2015

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here, and thank you, Mr. Rosser, for your presentation.

To follow up with a comment or two and a question from Mr. Cleary's question at the end, are you optimistic that the treaty will actually come into force at the end of the day?

Related to that, we're going through the process, as we speak, of being able to ratify this on Canada's behalf. What's the relationship of this treaty to our key partners, the EU and the U.S., for example? Have they already ratified? Are they using the powers and all of that?

[Tom Rosser]

Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Kamp. I have a couple of thoughts.

Certainly there is broad international consensus around the treaty. It takes time, as is often the case with these things, for countries to take a treaty and make the necessary legislative amendments in their domestic processes. A number of countries have done that in the case of this treaty. We believe that a solid global consensus exists on this, and that in time more and more signatories will ratify the treaty and it will ultimately enter into force.

Two of our key partners, the U.S. and the European Union, have been very much at the forefront in negotiating this treaty. In the case of the European Union, they have ratified it and put it into force. In the United States, the administration has signed it and there are bills making their way through the legislative process to bring it into force in terms of their domestic legislation.

I would say as well that in both the European Union and the United States, we're seeing an increased focus on curtailment of IUU fishing. In the case of the European Union, they've put in place a catch certification regime. President Obama established a task force last year that reported in late 2014 on a series of measures to, among other things, curtail the import of IUU-produced fisheries into the U.S. I take that as signs indicative that our key partners are giving increased focus to the problem of IUU fisheries. I think one of the ways that Canada can demonstrate that we're a partner in those efforts is to amend our own legislation to bring this treaty into force.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Let me interrupt there and ask another question before I get a little more specific.

You'd probably agree, I think, that our Coastal Fisheries Protection Act is already fairly robust in terms of its ability to protect Canadian fishing interests. If we hadn't been involved in this process in signing the port state measures agreement, would these be the kind of amendments that we would still be interested in making to the act?

[Tom Rosser]

I will turn shortly to my colleague Mr. MacLean to offer his perspective.

You're quite right that we're doing this to bring ourselves into compliance with a global treaty, to make ourselves part of a global solution to a global problem. It is also true that by global standards Canada is not a major contributor to IUU fisheries; we do have a robust domestic regime in place and we're a relatively small contributor to a serious global problem. As such, some of the measures included in the global treaty and reflected in the amendments in this bill envisage situations that are rare, if not unheard of, in a Canadian context.

That said—and I'll turn to Allan for his thoughts on this shortly—in some fairly sensible, practical, commonsensical ways, I think the bill does enable our conservation and protection officers at DFO, the Canada Border Services Agency, and other law enforcement agencies to carry out their mandates more effectively, to collaborate among themselves effectively, and where appropriate, to work and exchange information on violations more efficiently and effectively with the relevant foreign agencies.

[Allan MacLean]

Thank you, Tom.

I would say that from a compliance perspective, these measures will enhance the ability of compliance officers to do their job on a day-to-day basis. The whole part about communication and collaboration and exchange of information is an important element of this document that will enhance their ability to work with their partner agencies.

Over the years we have found that there are some gaps, small gaps, in the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, and we feel that these amendments will certainly help us on a day-to-day basis.

[Ryan Cleary, NDP, St. John's South—Mount Pearl, NL]

My specific question is this. Do the amendments to the act do something as simple as say that in order to import something into Canada, you need documentation? If it doesn't do that, could it? Basically, would it give the power to the government to require that, but then in regulation be more specific about what that documentation would look like?

[Tom Rosser]

I think that's a fair characterization of what this bill proposes to do. It is enabling legislation. The bill is sufficient to bring Canada...well, it isn't on its own sufficient to bring Canada into compliance with the treaty. It will require further regulatory amendments if and when the bill is adopted by Parliament and receives royal assent.

Yes, in certain cases, as I understand it, specifically in cases where regional fish management organizations, or RFMOs, like NAFO, to which Canada is a party, if they adopt catch certification standards that require certain documentation to accompany fish from that region when it is imported into Canada, the legislation would allow us to bring into place regulations that would allow conservation and protection officers and CBSA officers to ensure that the appropriate documentation followed those imports.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

If we're not a party to a particular fish management organization, would these amendments to the act give us the power to require that documentation, or would we need to amend Bill S-3 in order to make that happen?

[Tom Rosser]

I will turn to my colleagues to offer their perspectives, but my understanding is that the bill as drafted would only allow us to require that documentation in the case of RFMOs to which Canada is party.

Tim or Allan, is that...?

[Tim Angus]

Yes, or if it's specified in regulation thereafter.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

It would require some amendment to give that power. Am I right?

[Tim Angus]

Yes. Well, part of the problem is that if there's not a pre-established trade tracking system by RFMOs, and it's not specified in regulation, then a broader authority would be required, yes.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Along that line, have you identified any other areas where this committee could consider an amendment to Bill S-3? I know it came out of the Senate unamended, but are there any areas that you could bring to our attention?

[Tom Rosser]

Again, I'll turn to my colleagues. Perhaps Allan is the one best placed to speak to this.

In contemplating the regulations that might be proposed should this bill receive royal assent, one of the amendments that's proposed here increases the capacity of law enforcement officials to seize fish that are believed to have been produced from an IUU fishery. There may be some scope to better align the forfeiture powers under the bill, as I understand it.

Is that a fair assessment?

[Allan MacLean]

That is a fair assessment.

[Randy Kamp, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge—Mission, BC]

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rodney Weston]

Mr. MacAulay.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

I want to welcome our witnesses. The port state measures agreement is certainly important.

I'd just like to know if you have a figure on how much illegal fishing costs this country. What countries pose the biggest problem in the illegal fishery? Can you provide some information on what countries are providing the flags for these ships, and where are the boats from?

[Tom Rosser]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the member for an excellent question.

I'm not sure how quantitative an answer I can provide him, but as I think I mentioned in my remarks, there is evidence to suggest that IUU fishing is a significant global problem and illegally harvested fish do account for a significant proportion of the global fish supply.

The most direct way that it would impact the Canadian fisheries sector is by virtue of the fact that, by and large, we are suppliers to global markets. Something like 85% of the fish products produced in Canada are ultimately exported and consumed.

We're supplying product to global markets. The prices we receive for those products are determined in a global marketplace. When you have 15% to 20% of the global supply coming from IUU fisheries, first of all, that's increasing the supply of fish in that marketplace and therefore depressing the price, and second, because those products are being produced illegally, not respecting labour, environmental, and other standards, they are almost certainly being produced more cheaply than it's possible for a legal producer to do. Therefore, the most immediate impact of IUU fisheries on Canadian fishers and the Canadian fish and seafood product sector would be, in my view, through that effect of depressing global prices.

As I mentioned in response to another question, when it comes to precise data on this, almost by definition when you're talking about an illegal activity, it's hard to be precise in terms of data. There may well be.... I'll perhaps turn to my colleague Mr. Angus on this. I think we have a good idea of what regions in the world the IUU fishery is more problematic in. We know that it is more problematic in some regions, perhaps, than others. I'm not aware of specific data sources. We know it's more problematic for some species than others, but almost by definition it's a subject that doesn't lend itself to precise analysis or data. I—

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Excuse me, but when you're responding, I'd point out that the northern waters are opening up. Is there a bigger concern or is there less concern? What is being done to make sure there's protection in that area of our country in fisheries? This is going to be a very important area in the fishery.

[Tom Rosser]

Again, Mr. Chair, I'd like to thank the member for an excellent question, and again I may turn to my colleague for his insights.

It is true that at an international level there is concern about fishing in the Arctic, in the high Arctic, and about whether we have an adequate regulatory regime to prevent that, at least until such time as scientific data can inform what would be a sustainable level of fishing. There are informal discussions taking place about it with the Arctic coastal states and other interested parties, recognizing that it's a problem that doesn't yet exist, at least in the high Arctic. There aren't ships fishing there. There aren't ships trying to access it.

Recognizing that it could be a problem in the future, there are ongoing discussions among interested countries about what might be an appropriate response to that.

I'll turn to my colleague.

[Tim Angus]

Mr. Chair, I want to go back to the question of specific countries or areas. This is an issue particularly off the west coast of Africa and in Asia. I think there is an established link between IUU fishing and indentured servitude, or even slavery, so it's certainly something that we would like to address. Those tend to be the regions where this issue is problematic.

As Tom mentioned, there is concern about fishing in the central Arctic Ocean, and there is a separate process for that, which is ongoing.

[Lawrence MacAulay, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Are many of these vessels that enter Canadian ports illegal? Are they involved in illegal fisheries? Where would you normally have to deal with them?

[Tom Rosser]

That's probably a question that Allan could offer perspectives on. In terms of the number of foreign-flagged vessels that enter Canadian ports, I think it varies from year to year. They aren't huge in number. I think they typically number in the dozens. I'm not sure that they've ever numbered over 40 or 50, so we're not talking about an enormous number of vessels, although Allan may be able to answer more precisely.

[Allan MacLean]

On average, 45 to 55 foreign vessels a year enter Canadian ports. Of those, they're licensed vessels. It would be a rarity to have what we would consider an IUU vessel enter a Canadian port, but we want to ensure we have the proper tools in place to deal with that.

For the most part, IUU vessels look for weaknesses in regulatory frameworks. They utilize those weaknesses in regulatory frameworks to figure out where they're going to go next and how they're going to get product into the marketplace.